Mudassir v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Mudassir ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.355 of 2024) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail trial in C.C.No.246 of 2025 on the file of II Additional Special Trial NDPS Court, Chennai. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.01.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), r/w. 22(b), 29(1) of NDPS Act 1985, in Crime No.355 of 2024, on the file of the respondent 1/6
police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2024, at about 17.15 hours, when Tr.Vijayakanth, the Inspector of Police was in a station duty, at that time he received secret information about illegal transport of contraband. Based on that, he along with his police team (i.e.) Tr.Guruprasath PC-63425 Tr.Dhanancheliyan PC-53406 Tr.Suburaj PC-60824 Tr.Rajasekar PC-52361 went to the scene of occurrence place (i.e.) near Mettu Street, Lingachetti, Chennai. At that time two unknown person were standing in a suspecious manner along with bags. On seeing the respondent police the accused persons tried to escape from the place but the respondent police caught hold of them and conducted search on the accused person. During the investigation it came to know that the accused person namely Midhun/A4. Deepak/A5.
Subsequently, the respondent police conducted search the accused person having found a possession of 5 grams Methamphetamine. Further the respondent police seized the Methamphetamine, Mobile phone-2, and under cover of seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The the respondent police arrested the accused person A4 and A5 and recorded their confession statement. Based on the confession recorded from A4 to A5, it was revealed that the petitioner had supplied the contraband. Hence, he was also arrested.
2/6
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that originally the petitioner was arrested and detained under Act 14 of 1982, and subsequently, the detention order has been quashed, and there is no recovery from this petitioner, and the total quantity seized in this case is in between quantity i.e., 10 grams of Methamphetamine. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reported that the petitioner herein has bad antecedents and is involved in 5 previous cases. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.
6. The petitioner herein was arrested on 22.01.2025, and has been in jail for almost 10 months, and it is also stated that out of 5 cases, he has been discharged in one case, and also the fact that no recovery was effected from the petitioner in this case, hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
3/6
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 4/6
5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
11.11.2025 mpa Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.
2.The Inspector of Police, North Beach Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
5/6
mpa 11.11.2025 6/6